Bacon and ham sold in the UK should carry cigarette-style labels warning that chemicals in them cause bowel cancer, scientists say.

Their demand comes as they criticise successive British governments for doing “virtually nothing” to reduce the risk from nitrites in the decade since they were found to definitely cause cancer.

Saturday marks a decade since the World Health Organization in October 2015 declared processed meat declared processed meat to be carcinogenic to humans, putting it in the same category as tobacco and asbestos.

top 88 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 40 points 1 year ago (17 children)

It's been working its way through California courts since the 2015 WHO guidelines said processed meats are carcinogenic. Under Prop 65 that should have triggered immediately labeling processed meats as "Known to the State of California to cause cancer" (like we already have on any charred food, parking garages, etc) but because reasons a decade later I think it is still being adjudicated.

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 47 points 1 year ago (14 children)

    It's pointless because California standards are so stringent that literally everything has a prop 65 warning on it.

    It's completely lost all value or meaning to end consumers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    It really needs to specify the carcinogens and what they're used as. There's a huge difference between "this product uses a 30% lead solder in internal components" and "adhesives used in this product may offgas formaldehyde"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Yes!! Thank you for getting it. I have no issues with labeling carcinogens but we really need to distinguish between agents that are harmful at the ppm and the ppb levels.

    There's an entire axis that differs by orders of magnitude that is being ignored and it's incredibly detrimental to the whole system.

    This list sucks because it lacks meaningful information and is just eventually going to be a list of every compound in the known universe.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    There's magnitude and that's important but the big thing about what, where, how is that it tells me how to protect myself and others from it. If my metal shim is an alloy containing lead, I need to wash my hands after touching it, use breathing protection and air filtration if I grind it, and cover it in the final version of the product. If it's made in a facility that also processes lead, I can just wash it and it'll be fine. If it may contain trace lead from ore deposits I don't have to care. Meanwhile internal components that don't offgas just means I'm fine if I don't open it up

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    The classic A to F + S ranking. Nobody wants to come near an S ranked carcinogen.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Lmao a carcinogen tier list would unironically be fantastic because it would help me gauge the relative risk.

    I just feel like putting evering into one big bucket is lazy as fuck and doesn't really help anyone.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Yeah, that could also provide an incentive for companies to produce stuff in ways that reduce carcinogens, yet still have some amount. I think traditional bacon that doesn't use synthetic curing salts contain less nitrates, for example.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    That's not why. It's because it's cheaper for a manufacturer of your widget to just slap a Prop 65 label on anything and everything out of an overabundance of caution rather than go through all the testing and certification required to verify if there is or isn't any such material in the product. There's no penalty for false positives, so to remain "complaint" suddenly every manufactured good on Earth suddenly sprouted the warning.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I mean that doesn't really invalidate their point. If you can just slap it on anything you want then it's not really serving any purpose, it's not informing anyone.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    I would argue it is an important distinction, though.

    The original statement implies that there is a problem in how California classifies what constitutes a risk.

    That comment claims that it's manufacturers being lazy.

    If it's manufacturers being lazy, then the issue is the regulation is too relaxed, allowing them to just bypass the regulation by slapping pointless stickers on things (like websites try to do with cookie banners)

    If the actual requirements to not need the sticker are so stringent that everything with the label actually does need it, then there's a problem with the level of danger listed and the regulation is too onerous.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    It's completely lost all value or meaning to end consumers.

    Agreed I bought a fender telecaster (black cherry starburst, so sexy) and it had a prop 65 sticker on it. Absolutely rediculous and meaningless

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 64 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    They just want to keep the bacon for themselves.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    In the UK (not sure about anywhere else) you can buy bacon without Nitrates. ‘Naked Bacon’ is in sainsburys, tesco, etc. Been buying it for years.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    i want the nitrates please, it tastes hell of a lot better.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    I’ve gotten pizza with “uncured” bacon, ham, or sausage before. I’m not sure if the meat has no flavor or if it was the pizza tha had no flavor.

    However I expect the pizza itself was worse for me than those specific ingredients

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Because My grandfather cures meats without nitrates and it just tastes as good

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    At one point I looked into making jerky. It’s reasonable for people to do their own.

    The big question is whether to use curing salts. They’re necessary if you want to be shelf stable. If you don’t use them, you need to refrigerate your jerky and it has limited shelf life, like any other food. However in that scenario, you have the advantage of fresher ingredients with a quality of your selection that may make up for it.

    You don’t get that from store bought uncured meat

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    yeah my grandfather uses somthing else for curing his meats. he used to use curing salts but he stopped using that after the doctor told him to stop consuming so much nitrates and tbh it tastes the same to me but i know that it needs to be vaccumed packed so it doesnt spoil, and in the fridge, but thats a better trade off for nitrates.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I'll copy some of the answers from the WHO Q&A linked in the post:

    Processed meat was classified in the same category as tobacco and asbestos, does that mean they're equally carcinogenic?

    No, processed meat has been classified in the same category as causes of cancer such as tobacco smoking and asbestos (IARC Group 1, carcinogenic to humans), but this does NOT mean that they are all equally dangerous. The IARC classifications describe the strength of the scientific evidence about an agent being a cause of cancer, rather than assessing the level of risk.

    How many cancer cases per year?

    According to the most recent estimates by the Global Burden of Disease Project, an independent academic research organization, about 34 000 cancer deaths per year worldwide are attributable to diets high in processed meat.

    Eating red meat has not yet been established as a cause of cancer. However, if the reported associations were proven to be causal, the Global Burden of Disease Project has estimated that diets high in red meat could be responsible for 50 000 cancer deaths per year worldwide.

    These numbers contrast with about 1 million cancer deaths per year globally due to tobacco smoking, 600 000 per year due to alcohol consumption, and more than 200 000 per year due to air pollution.

    How much is the risk of cancer increased?

    The consumption of processed meat was associated with small increases in the risk of cancer in the studies reviewed. In those studies, the risk generally increased with the amount of meat consumed. An analysis of data from 10 studies estimated that every 50 gram portion of processed meat eaten daily increases the risk of colorectal cancer by about 18%.

    The cancer risk related to the consumption of red meat is more difficult to estimate because the evidence that red meat causes cancer is not as strong. However, if the association of red meat and colorectal cancer were proven to be causal, data from the same studies suggest that the risk of colorectal cancer could increase by 17% for every 100 gram portion of red meat eaten daily.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Oh boy, can’t wait to see right wing screeches about Muslim takeover of UK.

    IMO every food should have cancer rating in the nutrition facts, cause it’s not black and white.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    What does Muslim have to do with bacons being carcinogenic?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    A lot of right wing nutters in the UK claim that Muslims are trying to take over the country and make everyone follow Sharia law, which doesn't allow eating pork. Spouting off online that this move is part of that conspiracy would be very on brand for them. Much like Alex Jones' "making the frogs gay" tirade.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    WARNING: Bacon contains chemicals known to the UK Government to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.

    So it’s fine if I just don’t eat the bacon in the UK? Then I am safe!

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I mean processed meat sure.

    But you can pull bacon from my cold, dead, cancerous hands.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    Is the UK going to start putting cancer labels on Gin, Scotch Whisky, ale and cider? Because alcohol is not just a proven carcinogen but also toxic to a number of organs and a huge public health problem. It is a much, much larger health problem than bacon. The anti-meat lobby is extremely passionate about their cause. They have some strong arguments about the ethics of factory farming and the environmental impacts but it does make any proposal like this suspect because you just know that some of the proponents are more concerned about the ethics of meat eating than the health impacts.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Sausages are OK right? Right?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago

    I mean ... They cause cancer. We literally know they do. It should at least be fucking STATED. Like come the fuck on

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (18 children)

    put the cancer warnings, like smoking people will still consume it.

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (10 children)

    A bunch of the stuff I buy has CA cancer warnings on it. When you start putting the warnings on common things, it makes the warnings meaningless...

    Do any of the things I buy have a notable chance to cause caner? I have no fucking clue, because everything causes cancer in California.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago*

    That's something I've noticed too. There's not really any information about what parts of something to avoid or what the risk is or how you'd come into contact with it, but I remember seeing it everywhere when I lived there too, and I was like

    "Everything in California including California is known to the state of California to cause cancer and reproductive harm."

    I'm not saying it shouldn't be there at all, but at least wish it was a bit more like Material Safety Data Sheets that gives a bit more understanding to what you're getting into by interacting with various things.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Let me ask for fun, does toothpaste have a warning?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    You know, I can't remember any toothpaste with that warning. So, win one for us I guess! ;p

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (4 children)

    Imagine brushing your teeth with a ‘may cause cancer’ warning. You think people would even care or just ignore it? ignorance is bliss is real

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    id still do it. mabye my teeth would glow.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Does that come with superpowers? I'd be brushing twice a day

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Yeah but imagine having to explain to your daughter at breakfast, "Daddy, what's that on the label? What's cancer?"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    "Don't worry about it, honey. This is just more government bullshit, like with COVID and Brexit. The Muslims are trying to make eating pork illegal. Have an extra portion. Don't let them tell you what to do."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    This is just more government bullshit

    Just like the California cancer label that is on everything, if you put this label on common shit like bacon, then yes, "it's just more government bullshit" is exactly how the vast majority of people will treat it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    I've seen the "California cancer label" line get tossed around. And its beginning to sound a lot like the "McDonalds Coffee Lawsuit" line, which was - itself - a dishonest mischaracterization of a severe injury caused by corporate neglect.

    I'd say it cuts both ways. If you label everything "hazardous", you're absolutely right. The term loses all meaning. But, at the same time, if we live in a marketplace where everything is hazardous then the theory "we'll just put a label on it and let the consumer decide" of patriarchal libertarianism falls apart. What is supposed to be informative becomes little more than marketing material.

    The real problem is industrial. Mass production of stuff that delivers a short-term jolt of pleasure at a long term health cost, because the manufacturers consider it more profitable than releasing products with a shorter shelf life or a lower addictive quality or a more expensive production cost.

    Oops, now everything needs a label, because the folks producing this shit don't care that all their products are horrible.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Look mate.

    In this cold, bleak and heartless blasted hell of an existence this is one of the few genuine pleasures I have guilt free.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago

    You don't have to feel guilty about risking your own health! I never felt guilty about smoking (never smoked other than in smoking areas), I never feel guilty about eating processed bullshit that is probably no good for me.

    This world is too cold to feel guilty for something that only affects you! 🫡

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    ...do I bring up the factory farms now or come back later?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    might as well just slap cancer warnings on everything these days. Launch a massive banner to orbit so everywhere can see the cancer warning for the sun. Doctors need to hold a cancer warning sign when a baby is being birthed so it'll be the first thing they see because you can literally just get cancer for simply living.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    We may as well flatten the whole planet to eliminate the risk of falling down stairs.

    I hate how far people go to safety pad the whole planet when an ounce of personality responsibility is all that's needed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Except personal responsibility is impossible when people don't know that xyz food causes cancer.

    That's why they're asking for a label. So that people can make an informed choice. That's literally their entire point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    If the labels don't have some type of ranking system, then they are pointless. A great example being the California cancer labels that are on fucking everything. It's impossible to use them to gauge risk, because everything you buy causes cancer in California.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    My problem is that these labels don't differentiate the levels at which demonstrable harm occurs. I'm not against labels, I'm against bad labels

    Putting something that's harmful at the parts per million(ppm) level in the exact same category as something that's harmful in the parts per billion(ppb) level is counterproductive.

    This results in people treating incredibly harmful compounds that are dangerous in the ppb range the same as compounds that are dangerous in the ppm or even ppt(thousand) range.

    Including minor and major carcinogens in the same label makes people think they're safer than they are.

    It's why prop65 warnings are a joke and ignored by almost all consumers.

    If we're going to use a single label that doesn't differentiate the level of harm then we need to save it for the most harmful compounds only.

    Tldr: Without more information on the label putting nitrates in the same category as asbestos or lead is counterproductive via implied false equivalence.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Wait till you hear about oxygen, or water.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Everyone who has died has at one point in their life ingested dihydrogenmonoxide. Look it up!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    It's also the worlds most addictive chemical, and alarmingly nobody addicted to dihydrogen monoxide has ever been able to overcome that addiction, every dihydrogen monoxide addict dies with a 100% certainty within a few weeks if they stop taking it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Wait what.. goddamn it.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    This got me wondering: If bananas are radioactive, and radiation can mutate cells and cause cancer... Can bananas cause cancer? 🤔

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    It's theoretically possible, some experts think no level of radiation is "safe". Yet, it's so improbable that the risk of developing cancer from a single banana is indistinguishable from background noise. You get a far higher dose of radiation just from living on earth.

    This fun infographic from xkcd shows a comparison of doses, and just how low a banana ranks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose#/media/File:Radiation_Dose_Chart_by_Xkcd.png

    It would have to be the "perfect shot" of a particle hitting a cell to cause DNA damage that wasn't repairable. And you would need to be extremely immunocompromised.

    If you were in such a position to get cancer from eating a single banana, you would likely already get it from living life.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›